Back to the Shores of Tripoli?

by Daniel Pipes

Mr. Pipes, director of the Middle East Forum and Taube distinguished visiting fellow at the Hoover Institution, taught strategy and policy at U.S. Naval War College.

The official hymn of the U.S. Marine Corps famously begins with"From the Halls of Montezuma to the shores of Tripoli, we fight our country's battles on the land as on the sea." The reference to Tripoli alludes to the Battle of Derna of 1805, the first overseas land combat fought by U.S. troops and a decisive American victory.

Recent fighting in Libya prompts a question: Should the marines be sent anew to the shores of Tripoli, this time to protect not the high seas but the rebellious peoples of Libya rising against their government and calling for assistance as they are strafed from the air by troops loyal to Mu'ammar al-Qaddafi?

My first instinct is readily to agree to a no-fly zone, thereby improving the odds for the valiant opposition. Several factors encourage this instinct: Libya's easy accessibility from U.S. and NATO air bases, the country's flat and sparse geography, the near-universal condemnation of Qaddafi's actions, the urgency fully to restore Libyan oil to the export market, and the likelihood that such intervention will end the wretched 42-year rule of an outlandish and repulsive figure.

But instinct does not make for sound policy. An act of war requires context, guidelines, and consistency.

However easy the operation might look, Qaddafi could have unexpected reserves of power that could lead to a long and messy engagement. If he survives, he could become all the more virulent. However repulsive he may be, his (Islamist?) opponents could be yet more threatening to U.S. interests. More broadly, meddling in an internal conflict could make more enemies than friends, plus it would fuel anti-American conspiracy theories.

U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, surrounded by brass, explains to Congress why he shies away from military engagement in Libya.

Further, airpower has not yet proven decisive in Libya (its impact has been mainly psychological and might not determine whether Qaddafi manages to stay in power. Imposing a no-fly zone in Libya sets a precedent in situations where circumstances are less favorable (e.g., North Korea). And who will follow Qaddafi's example and give up making nuclear weapons if this eases his own loss of power?

Behind the Libya debate looms the specter of Iraq and George W. Bush's"freedom agenda." Bush's partisans see this as pay-back time while skeptics worry about unintended consequences. Were Barack Obama to use force in Libya, it would be tantamount to his conceding he was wrong to savage Bush's Middle East policies. It would also, following Iraq and Afghanistan, involve American troops fighting the forces of yet another majority-Muslim country, something that Obama, with his emphasis on"mutual respect" with Muslims, must be loathe to undertake.

More fundamental is the imperative not to put American troops in harm's way on behalf of humanitarian goals for other peoples; social work cannot be the U.S. government purpose; rather, troops must always forward specific American national interests.

That the U.S. military, as personified by Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, shies away from taking on this duty, emphasizing its costs and dangers ("a big operation in a big country"), serves as a salutary caution, especially given lapses in U.S. intelligence. That Libyans are starting to turn to Islamists for leadership, however, could turn Libya into another Somalia.

The American arsenal permits a president to ignore other states and deploy unilaterally; but is this wise? Iraqi precedents (1991, 2003) suggest it is politically worth the inconvenience to win endorsement from international organizations such as the United Nations, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, the Arab League, the African Union, or even the Organization of the Islamic Conference.

Would endorsement by the African Union (logo above) make a difference?

As Jeffrey White of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy notes, although a no-fly zone is what the opposition requests, it is just one of many options available to Washington. Others include, from least to most ambitious: providing opposition forces with intelligence, logistical support, communications hardware, and training, sending them weapons; helping defend liberated areas; rendering Libyan airfields inoperable; or actively fighting regime forces.

Humanitarian, political, and economic reasons converge in Libya to overcome legitimate hesitations. Working with international authorization, the U.S. government should fulfill its accustomed role of leadership and help Libya's opposition. However risky that course, doing nothing is yet riskier.

More Comments:

james joseph butler -
3/27/2011

There's a biological term for the phenomenon evident on these posts. I don't know the word but the principle is that one can observe similar structures and dynamics on both micro and macro scales. NF do you know that word?

N. Friedman -
3/23/2011

Actually, James, you have your facts wrong.

In addition to the massacre by Palestinian Arabs of innocent children - up close and personal, sending the message that the aim of Palestinian Arab politics is genocide - but the firing of a trove of missiles into Israel.

The response to the missiles - and, to note, the missiles were aimed with no care where they landed, making them a war crime -, the Israelis responded in order to halt the missiles. That resulted in the deaths of the Palestinian Arab side. Such was, under the rules of war, more than a proportionate response and the deaths of Palestinian Arabs were the result of their firing rockets from civilian locations.

This is not tit for tat. And, your analysis is morally bankrupt.

Oh, and add to your list another genocide attack, this time in Jerusalem, with a bus targeted. One death and many injured.

james joseph butler -
3/23/2011

NF,
What happened this past week in Israel Palestine is instructive. The family slain in their beds was a crime. What has been the Israeli response? Anger, munitions discharged, innocent Palestinians slain, declarations of righteous land acquistion.

Both sides got what they wanted. The Palestinian murderer/extremists precipitated Israeli violence that killed Palestinian innocents and avowals of more settlers.

Does it matter that Palestinians are supposed to be happy with humble pie and a 22% Bantustan? Nope. Not at all, except for the truth that as long as Israel wants unconditional surrender, Israeli and Palestinian children will die.

art eckstein -
3/20/2011

Mr. Butler, I think you are at best naive. One of those extremist minorities with little power that you describe is the current government of Gaza; it praises suicide bombing fo civilians, it regularly shoots rockets at civilians within the pre-1967 borders of Israel. Last week it encouraged the celebration of the intentional beheading of a Jewish baby.

This is to concretize with action intentionally against civilians the explicit genocidal message found in its Covenant.

Repeat: this isn't some fringe group meeting in an apartment somewhere. This is the government of Gaza. Wake up.

You swing between anti-Israel propaganda (and anti-semitic language for which you have been reproved), and a bland "can't we all get along." Never a focus on where the real problem is, which NF and I have laid out: one can't get along with those whose explicit intention is to kill you, an intention repeated over and over, and made manifest in the beheading of babies.

james joseph butler -
3/20/2011

Gentlemen,
Feel free to throw your snow balls.

Regarding crimes against humanity; the family slain in their beds was a brutal crime.

The Israelis by any many measure are responsible for the deaths of more civilians, be they Lebanese or Palestinian, for the last year, decade, or half century than the Palestinians. This is irrelevant.

What is relevant is the future. Both sides can dwell upon past sins committed by the other, it's a lot like this message board a waste of time created for male egos. Or they can focus upon commonalities, I've known a lot of Arabs and Jews they're a lot alike; they love the land,(LA, NYC,and oh yeah, that screwed up HOLY LAND) they want to prosper, they want to maintain and honor their respective ethnicities/identities.

I hate to break the news to you but I generally agree with you guys. I believe in Israel. Just as most Palestinians have reconciled themselves to the truth that Israel is a fact on the ground.

The Palestinians who want to smite Israel from the Earth are little different from the Israeli settlers who want it all. They believe in unconditional surrender, absolute war, and a better world beyond this one. They are the minority and the surveys reflect this.

I've pointed to parallels between Ireland and Israel before and they remain relevant in so far as in 1920 they were was a significant minority of Catholics in Eire who wanted it all. They didn't get it and sure enough there was a price to paid, Michael Collins and thousands of others paid it, but Ireland is now bedeviled by the same capitalist sins as America rather than the Old Testament madness that is Israel/Palestine.

Point being: the "human excrement" talk is for kids and mad men. Show respect for human beings and the participants on HNN.

Thanks jjb.

N. Friedman -
3/19/2011

One more little detail for James, a man who rationalizes genocidal violence.

A detail that wasn't widely reported, or reported anywhere that I've seen, is that their newborn baby was decapitated.

As we know, James, this event was celebrated by Palestinian Arabs. Read this report:

Gaza residents from the southern city of Rafah hit the streets Saturday to celebrate the terror attack in the West Bank settlement of Itamar where five family members were murdered in their sleep, including three children.

Residents handed out candy and sweets, one resident saying the joy "is a natural response to the harm settlers inflict on the Palestinian residents in the West Bank."

This political movement is genocidal in nature. Unless and until this urge dissipates, I can only say that anyone who sides with Palestinian Arabs has sided with a despicable political movement.

art eckstein -
3/19/2011

It is an indication of Butler's warped view that he equates NF and myself with the genocidal monsters who committed this act, murderers of children who actualize and concretize the openly genocidal and Nazi-like rhetoric from Palestinian and Muslim leaders which I cited. Our crime? Trying to bring a little balance to a conversation which would otherwise be dominated by the ignorant rants of Butler and Omar.

N. Friedman -
3/18/2011

James,

Indeed, you really need to listen to the hate. Hatred is an irrational force. Blind hatred has historically found a way to pop up an awful lot against Jews.

The attacks seen here are the result of an ideologically driven hatred. It is not a response to anything other than the society which spawned it. It is no different from the Nazi ideology which, it should also be noted, also took itself out against innocent Jewish children, not only killing them but killing them in a manner not employed against other groups hated by the Nazis - swinging kids into trees, stomping their heads in, etc., etc.. (See, Daniel Jonah Goldhagen, Worse Than War: Genocide, Eliminationism, and the Ongoing Assault On Humanity).

I repeat: acts of the type here are not transient acts in a political cause as you would understand it. These acts - as the glorification and celebrations surrounding them make clear - are not part of any normal politics. They are acts committed as part of a movement which aims at genocide. And, given the opportunity, genocide would be committed with Palestinian Arabs cheering it on, as they have done here.

Again: were the Palestinian Arabs to adopt a political cause that, by any normal reckoning, could be called moral - as in they act in a "just war," reasonable settlement demands would be made and acts of the type here would not be celebrated.

You say I should put myself in the place of Palestinian Arabs. I can very easily. My wife grew up in the USSR. She did not blow up human beings to get her way. She did not slit the throats of babies. She did not celebrate their demise, as Palestinian Arab do. Her cause - to be free of persecution - was objected to by a far stronger force than Israel, a force less restrained in the means it was willing to employ than Israel, etc., etc. Yet, that cause was advanced with dignity. Is there anyone - anyone - who can say that what Palestinian Arabs do to advance their cause is moral? Of course not.

My suggestion to you... If you want to help the Palestinian Arabs, help them to adopt a cause other than genocide. Then, there is plenty of room for compromise.

james joseph butler -
3/18/2011

The necessity of the truth.

What kind of animal commits an act as heinous as this? No flag, no anthem, no Star of David: an infant, a knife, an inhuman act. Where does it stop?

A child, a human bred. A person who sees the world in black and white, who conceives and executes a box of hate. Put your ear to the ground and listen to the hate. A rolling drum beat, that needs more sins to fulfill its agenda; a keening whine of retribution.

They may awaken but the blood remains.

N. Friedman -
3/18/2011

Arnold,

There is a time and place for criticism. However, now is the time that butchers should be called butchers. Otherwise, what you are doing is excusing the acts of human excrement who are mistakenly called human.

And, again: what did a 3 month old child do to deserve to be butchered to death? You and I both know the answer. You, however, want to use the occasion to try to score points for Palestinian barbarism - advocates of genocide!!! - that you confuse with a legitimate political movement.

art eckstein -
3/18/2011

Butler, quivering with outrage over the settlements, and offering justification for killing infants by slitting their throats, has yet to respond to my delineation of the Nazi-like genocidal ideology which is fomented by Israel's enemies.

So I ask you again, for the fourth time, Butler (three on another thread which you did not deign to answer),
you're so concerned with seeking out examples of subtle Israeli racism, what do you say about THIS:

a. Mahmoud Al-Zahar, founder of Hamas said in 2007: “There is no place for you Jews among us, and you have no future among the nations of the world. You are headed to annihilation.”

b. In that same year, Ahmad Bahar, Acting Chairman of Gaza Parliament said:

“Be certain that America is on its way to disappear,… Allah, take hold of the Jews and their allies…Allah, count them and kill them to the last one and don’t leave even one.”

It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to know who these people are, Butler. They are genocidal racists, and totally explicit--indeed insistent--about it. The murders of the three babies are the concrete actualization of calls for genocide such as THIS:

c. Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, on al-Jazeera, Jan. 26, 2009:

"Throughout history, Allah has imposed upon the Jews people who would punish them for their corruption...The last punishment was carried out by [Adolf] Hitler. By means of all the things he did to them – even though they exaggerated this issue – he managed to put them in their place. This was divine punishment for them...Allah willing, the next time will be at the hand of the believers."

That's right, Butler: Qaradawi, with his huge Muslim following (40 million listen to his radio show, he spoke to a crowd of a million in Egypt a month ago), is explicitly PRAYING here that the Muslims will be allowed to FINISH Hitler's work!

But so far, three requests for a comment from Butler have been met by silence.

Arnold Shcherban -
3/18/2011

<Latvian court allows march honoring Waffen SS forces>, but I guess Israeli leaders lost their voices out of indignation..., while me and James are happened to be at the shooting range of their ideological snipers.

Arnold Shcherban -
3/18/2011

What you see here on full display, James,
is the despicable character of those greatest incubators of antisemitism of all - Zionist ilk - in all its ugliness.
I'm the one who attracted everyone's attention to that, as I wrote, "horrific crime", and just because I dared, also, to criticize Israeli governments (whom those enemies of freedom and truth canonized as "untouchables"), I became "morally bankrupt"(!?)
I tell you, if there were not many of honest, brave, and extraordinary intelligent Jewish personalities out there, those despicable characters would make me an antisemitic.

N. Friedman -
3/17/2011

Note that James does not actually address the points in the article I cited. Note that this is not a question about the legitimacy of settlements, the legitimacy of Israel, the legitimacy of anything; it is, instead, about those who oppose Israel.

Rather than simply condemning baby killers - killers who are cheered by their own and who kill babies, not by mistake, but by design as if they were acting under divine command -, we have rationalization for their crimes. Note that the killers stabbed babies to death, gruesomely. Why, James, is that sort of act necessary to the Palestinian Arab cause? How does it do anything other than make the Israelis say, screw the Palestinian Arabs, they would kill us all anyway if they could, as this gruesome act, repeatedly stabbing a 3 month old child, shows?

Now, I have no problem advancing the Arab cause, were it a cause other than to commit genocide. I think there is a legitimate cause that would exist, were the Palestinian Arabs to adopt it. But, frankly, whether you think, like other Antisemites of your despicable ilk think, Israel is a mistake, your version of advancing the Palestinian Arab cause has nothing to do with the cause actually advanced by Palestinian Arabs - a cause perfectly embodied by the genocidal animals who target children to be gruesomely dismembered. As a result of your unwillingness to look at what you are supporting - as it is, not as it ought to be, were it a cause directed to a just end -, you find yourself advocating for things you know full well are despicable and unjustifiable in any cause. But, we have you siding with genocidal animals who have given up any right to call themselves humans.

Now, we already have the true voice of what Palestinian Arabs think; Omar being a perfect embodiment of Palestinian Arab thinking. I do not think either of us would take the same line of argument he would. You would be embarrassed to make the argument he makes.

I could, however, make my own defense of Palestinian Arabs, a defense of the cause they, as a matter of simple morality, have a right to advance. Here it is - and it is not tough. All involved are human beings and should be treated as such. That means, a settlement needs to be reached between the parties so that all can lead decent lives. In that neither side gets along, that means partition or union of the Palestinian areas with Jordan. By either means, the legitimate rights of both sides can be protected.

Now, were the Palestinian Arabs to take the tact along the lines I have asserted, I think the dispute could be settled very readily. They won't because they don't. They advocate genocide and their cause needs to be understood for what it is, as so plainly shown by a murderer who brutally kills a baby, with a knife so that it is up close and personal, no question being possible whether it was an accident - no 3 month old could possibly have lifted a finger against the genocidal animal who attacked.

For you defend such despicable animals - trying to cast blame on children, no less - places you beneath contempt.

james joseph butler -
3/17/2011

I read the Stephens piece in the WSJ and now thanks to NF I've read the Irish shrink's piece, apart from the Irishman's claim regarding the EU's sponsorship of terrorism what they have in common is outrage. Outrage feels good, "I'm right! you're bad; I'm good. In fact you're evil."

The internet, Wikileaks, and freedom of information enable anyone, in the right country anyway, who is interested in Israel and Palestine, to read, to their heart's content, what happened then and what happens now. Lalor and Stephens are part of the conversation, do they say anything original or thoughtful?

NF suggests that we seek a "fairer interpretation", fair enough NF. However if what one seeks is the fairest interpretation one should look beyond tribal affiliation. An interesting exercise, defend your enemy. For the next week I'll defend Israel and you'll defend Palestine. I know impossible. Israelis are good guys and Palestinians who don't do what Bibi wants them to are bad guys.

I think Israel is a big fat mistake but I'd be happy to play devil's advocate for a week. Sure it's blasphemy but you and I might learn something. At least I will because I will defend Israel for a week. I feel better already, or starting tomorrow, for a week I'll know I'm on the side of civilization and good guys and Intel and Bechtel and General Dynamics and Xe and Republicans and Democrats and Grumman, and Halliburton. Jesus, the Rapture, Chanukah, Judea and Samaria.. . Born again.

Fahrettin Tahir -
3/17/2011

down with everything and everone!
long live Zapata!

N. Friedman -
3/17/2011

For a fairer interpretation of these events, I would suggest reading this article. It shows the total moral bankruptcy of Arnold and his illiberal comrades.

Arnold Shcherban -
3/17/2011

Several days ago Jewish family of five people (three children) residing
in one of the Jewish settlements on West Bank was brutally murdered by, as far as we know up to now, Palestinian terrorist(s) - Islamic fanatic(s).
While the latter is(are) directly responsible for that horrific crime,
any unbiased observer cannot help noticing that they lived in one the illegal Israeli settlements, the settlements, which, as it well-known to Israeli authorities/governments invoke most of anger and hatred, adding a lot of fuel to the long flame of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Thus, Israeli authorities share a responsibility for this last and previous killings on the ground of Jewish settlements on occupied Palestinian territory.
(See my recent posting on the recently vetoed by the US UN SC's resolution on the issue in question.)

Arnold Shcherban -
3/17/2011

We have to unite to repel vicious reactionary attacks of the US right-wing on the best institutions this country still have: workers unions, public and private, Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid. We also have to call for abolishing anyone's right of veto in UN Security Council, with the only exception of protecting OWN country among five of SC permanent members, the right, almost invariably, been used to shield perpetrators, not their victims, from responsibility for violations of international laws.

Arnold Shcherban -
3/17/2011

James,
I really envy your tremendous patience to continue a debate with those two similar groups - sworn enemies of truth and ideologues of aggression and ethnic cleansing.
I, based on a quite heavy experience with that ilk, decided to stop any further direct debate with them, just making my comments for anyone's consumption. And the more those religious and chauvinistic zealots dislike my comments (and I know they will, since the truth hurts almost all the time), the better I'll feel.

art eckstein -
3/16/2011

I have also come to know Fahrettin. I do not always agree with him. But he does not consciously misrepresent others' positions.

Arnold Shcherban -
3/16/2011

Islamic, Zionist extremism, and Western imperialism.

Fahrettin Tahir -
3/16/2011

here a short summary of how I see this discussion.

There are obviously big differences between the Islamic and Christian worlds. The is a war going on.

The road to a peaceful future necessitates talking to each other, defining the problems and looking for solutions which would be acceptable to both sides.

In this context I have tried to formulate a part of the problems.

Some of the replies were racist in the extreme "criminal nation" and not prepared to recognize the opportunities for compromise.

Although the place had nothing to do with the discussion some started an Israel discussion by formulating their hate. No matter what the issue on hand is.

And so the various wars go on, and on and on.

N. Friedman -
3/16/2011

Arnold,

Thank you for your considered response. I shall cherish it as an expression of your best and clearest post to date. In the meanwhile, you might consider explaining your statement so that someone other than you knows what you mean.

Arnold Shcherban -
3/16/2011

Zionists and Islamists have firmly established two victimizing premises, using them as a comprehensive explanation, basically as religious psalms, to justify their own crimes:
great Western need for OIL on one hand, and, allegedly, omni-present anti-Judaism(semitism) or anti-Islamism, respectively.
In order to prove unprovable, they (as representatives of ancient civilizations) use those from both ends, sometimes even one against another, i.e, in any sophistic manner
imaginable.
However, many decisions/conclusions made by international community, which found overwhelming support around the world, can hardly be attributed to those two "Oil and Hatred" psalms, and, moreover, obviously contradict them.

I'll refer readers' attention to just two of the last ones, but they are numerous and have been made throughout the history of
Israeli-Palestinian conflict, on one hand, and Western-Islamic one, on another.
The West and the world in general, depends on Middle-Eastern Oil, that only Arabs have, not us, and that's why it has to take anti-Israeli stance - claim Zionists...
Then how come all Western, together with the majority of non-Western, nations (some of which has no need for Islamic oil) raised their hands for implementing serious sanctions against Iran on a mere SUSPICION that the latter MAY be preparing in the future to produce nuclear bomb, the country they all buy the same Oil they depend so much on?
(The vote was 12-2, with only Turkey and Brasil voting against.)
On the other token, being allegedly forced (by the same "oily" dependence) to take anti-Israeli stance, the West did not produce a squeak, about huge and sophisticated (for such a small country) arsenal of nuclear weaponry owned by Israel for many years by now, which all of Western (and Eastern) nuclear experts are well aware about.
-------------------------------------
President Obama and his administration have publicly chastised Israeli government for "illegal" practice of building new settlements on occupied
Palestinian territories, as being one of the major obstacles to the negotiating process.
Zionists immediately yelled "Murder!", accusing
Obama's administration in all deadly sins, and, especially, in selling long-lasting unbreakable US-Israel union in exchange for Oil and the "false sense" of American national security in respect to Islamic terrorism.
However, when UN Security Council voted, at the end of the February of 2011, for the resolution just condemning in words (only insane ones can even dream about some practical measures) those settlements, for specific violations of pertaining international laws, the US representative in UN vetoed the resolution.
ALL the rest, i.e. 14 countries - members of Security Council - out of 15 voted for the resolution!
The majority of those countries also voted for the sanctions, against Iran, mentioned above
(certainly, because of their anti-semitic, anti-Israeli stance...)

Not only that veto (first under Obama administration!) clearly demonstrates the insidious character and real affiliation the USA policy-makers under ALL its presidents and administrations, Democrat and Republican, in spite of
their public pronouncements, but it shows the cunning falsity of self-victimizing cries of the Zionists.
And finally, just two of the examples
provided make Zionist (along with Islamic) self-victimizing and defensive rationale less than even remotely accounting for the real causes of the complex issues in question (not that I'm trying to illustrate or, even less, prove something to them, since they are accustomed to say what they realize NEEDED for the moment to defend their
ancient myths.)

Arnold Shcherban -
3/16/2011

"Birds of feather flock together."

N. Friedman -
3/16/2011

Fine by me.

Arnold Shcherban -
3/16/2011

"Birds of feather flock together."

james joseph butler -
3/16/2011

Brothers Fahrettein and Friedman,
Shall we students of history recognize that jjb speaks rashly at times. I come now in the spirit of peace and harmony to find common cause. We agree that Israel and Turkey seek peace and prosperity. We agree that no nation is without sin. We agree that the 1967 borders are the foundation for a better life.

Wow that was easy, and don't talk to me about devils and details. Enough with the manly trench warfare, stand up and look around already. It's within history's grasp except for the same mindless dynamic evident here day after mind numbing day. Read something refreshing. Listen to women.

N. Friedman -
3/15/2011

Arnold,

I did not imply that you misrepresent anyone - as if you were acting on purpose. I said you are mistaken in your interpretation of things.

I accept your view that I am beyond redemption. I shall wear it as a badge of honor. For the record, I do not think I am defending anything against the entire world. I think most of the world could care less about the dispute but, at the same time, does care about OIL. Absent the oil, only doctrinaire ideologues and Antisemites would be worked up about Israel. Of course, the fact is that there is no shortage of Antisemites in history so, presumably, that is also a driving force against Israel today - as it is with people like James, who is shameless. But, in places where Jews are not hated (e.g. in India and China), there is no obsession with Israel's supposed sins.

N. Friedman -
3/15/2011

james,

Stop talking nonsense. Israel is a country surrounded by hostile nations with hostile populations. It is a land of refugees - as in the vast majority of the Jewish population came as refugees or their parents or grandparents did. That, at the moment, it is hip to hate Israel's Jews does not make it a legitimate position or remotely moral. Such is, however, the position of the Stalinists and their modern day ideological successors. Such view is, as you surely know but choose to ignore, is thoroughly consistent with how Jews have been viewed over the course of the millennia. That is not self-centered. It is fact. So, what you say has long, and very ugly, roots.

Fahrettin's views are those of many, but not all, Turks. You, for whatever reason, disparage that view as if only your Israel hating view - a view which using the same language used against Jews for millennia - were anything but very old-fashioned bigotry. I disagree with many pieces of his view, but I do respect his viewpoint. And, my view that your views are basically bigoted does not mean I reject all criticism of Israel or anything else. However, I reject views which, without even a remote disguise, are no different from the conspiracy theories always asserted against Jews.

Now, we might turn to your viewpoint, which is thoroughly opposed to the minorities in the Arab and surrounding regions. From what I can tell, you side with the majority in its, frankly, oppression of the minority, whether Christian or Jewish or, in some instances, Muslim.

Hence, you manage to ignore the long standing persecution of Coptic Christians in Egypt, the persecution of Christians in Lebanon, the persecution of Christians, Jews and Baha'i in Iran, the persecution of Christians in Iraq, the persecution of dark skinned Muslims in Sudan. etc., etc.. You overlook that Jews, once a sizable minority in the Arab regions, were pushed out of those countries by the very same political forces that are today pushing Christians out of the Muslim Arab (and surrounding) regions. Not to include that concern central in your thinking amounts to being illiberal.

I, as I have previously noted, find your thinking outrageously bigoted and without a care for those effected. You have not the slightest idea about Israel or its history and certainly no remote sympathy for Jews and their demonization, persecution or oppression. If and when the people like you can examine issues relating to Jews without assuming that Jews have attached themselves to some conspiracy or horror, then I might take your ideas as other than bigotry incarnate. Until then, I shall point out your nonsense when I see it.

Fahrettin Tahir -
3/15/2011

James

that is one more contribution without saying anything except that you dislike us and the Jews.

As far as I am concerned people like you are a good reason for me to support the Jews.

james joseph butler -
3/15/2011

Fahrettin you find solace in the company of Zionists because they share your solipsistic jingoism; like them, you see humanity through the prism of nationalism. What you have in common is the sense that your people, your nation, has been slandered.

You're a noble people. You've never been anything less than honorable but the world has taken the sins against you and turned them into a kaleidoscopic farce. Turks are modern Muslims and how does the West respond? They lie and defame.

And you're 100% right. The West; America, France, the UK, cheat n' deceit. Their interests are themselves. Turkey a stalwart ally for half a century is treated like a child.

Speaking of children Fahrettin, that's what you are as long as cohabitate with these Zionists. Wake up senior citizen. (If you're not 65 plus, sue me.) Zionists love you because you're all about protecting "criminal nations". Dude, or sir, if you prefer, they're criminals, like America, because they're guilty.

Fahrettin Tahir -
3/15/2011

Arnold

there is nothing wrong with defending a country "against the whole world" if the whole world is mobbing it.

Evidence? Really?

Arnold Shcherban -
3/15/2011

N,
What can I say? Then you both need reeducation, at least, in English, or you just consider me greater and more dangerous adversary, and therefore take his side, by implying that it is me who habitually misrepresents opponent's position, but he (being an exemplary character) is just INCAPABLE of doing any wrong, unless by mistake.
Pleeeease...

Not coincidentally you defend Israel, the same way he defends Turkey, against the whole world and overwhelming evidence.

You both are beyond help...

Fahrettin Tahir -
3/15/2011

Mr Mutik

during the cold war Turkey was an agricultural cuntry with a population of 27 millions (1960). Most of her natural allies were under foreign occupation, politically weakening her. She was also a very loyal ally of the West, isolating her in the Islamic world which hated the colonialists.

When the Greeks initiated the Cyprus problem to force all Turks out of the island she was isolated in th east and the West supported Greece because first the Greeks were Christians and second the Greeks might have changed sides if annoyed and the Turks were loyal one way or the other.

Half a century later Turkey is an industrial power with a population of 75 millions. She is far more important than half a century ago.

After seeing what being loyal to the West did on Cyprus she would be a fool to remain a loyal ally. The West will only love and support you if you are about to jump away.

I do not think Jews are guilty of everythink which goes wrong. Neither are the Turks and anybody who calls us a criminal nation is having delusions.

N. Friedman -
3/15/2011

Joseph,

You claim as untrue the proposition that "... the west doesn't understand the Muslim world ..." Is this a point seriously debatable? So far as I can discern, the West has no interest in understanding the Muslim world; rather, the West projects its own ideas on the Muslim world, ideas to explain anything and everything.

I, for one, think that Fahrettin's point of view is worth having and that, whether or not he is correct, he does express actual views held by many people, including educated people, in the Muslim world. Which is to say, while there are many instances where I disagree with what he writes, I see no reason to disparage him or his arguments.

Joseph Mutik -
3/15/2011

Again the unpredictable result of a well written article by Daniel Pipes is meandering in front of our eyes!
First Mr. Tahir exercises his Muslim chutzpah and using the old and untrue argument that the west doesn't understand the Muslim world is demanding that the Muslim world should be left alone to discriminate, kill, ethnically cleanse anyone or everyone Muslim or not!
In a surprising move Mr. Butler and Mr. Shcherban describe the message of Mr. Tahir as Muslim chauvinism.
The reality is that Turkey lost the strategic importance, it had during the cold war and is trying now to reposition as a Muslim power broker. During the cold war the West kept eyes closed at the Turkish crimes but now when the strategic importance of Turkey diminished and this country is described in real historic colors as a 20th century genocidal criminal nation, the Turks begun to scream loudly that killing is a Muslim custom, you don't understand, so leave us alone!
About the figures used to describe the Turkish and Iraqi war crimes against the Kurdish people, of course the Iraqis killed more than the Turks. The 2000 Kurdish people killed by the Iraqis isn't the full number but a number that could be related to direct orders from Saddam Hussein and used as evidence in a trial.
I only wonder when the discussion will get back to normal and blame the Jews (under the cover of Zionism or not) for the problems of the world?!

N. Friedman -
3/15/2011

Arnold,

I read what you posted. I think you overestimate your clarity of expression. A bit of humility is due. Fahrettin may misinterpret your words or intentions but, as I see it, he made points that (a) need to be considered and (b) do not seem, in my view, a misrepresentation of your position. This is not to say that he has your position correctly, since you insist he has it wrong; only, that I read your comment pretty much the same way he did.

Arnold Shcherban -
3/15/2011

N,
I already quoted for him myself and his words several times, regarding the issue of misrepresentation, which clearly showed that he does and deliberately severely distorts my positions and views on the issues debated, but he continues to accuse ME in discriminatory vilification of Turks and Islam.
You either did not read those quotes (and then should have no say in the matter), or he needs special education studies, instead of participating on these boards.
Are you telling me that he, out of all participants, needs "special" treatment?

Fahrettin Tahir -
3/15/2011

N

thank you for trying cool down the climate. I really don't understand why he gets so excited. My impresstion is he can't have a Turkish point of view being represented. He has his fixed opinion on what that is and it annoys him.

Fahrettin Tahir -
3/15/2011

I never said the PKK has anything to do with Russia, It is based in WEstrn Europe and wages its terrorist war protected by the US army in Iraq.

If it helps their interests this duo will help marxist leninist terrorists make war against their ally.

Fahrettin Tahir -
3/15/2011

Arnold

I don't really underestand what you are trying to say. I know some of the PKK cadres. They are a 1960ies marxist leninist liberation movement. I quoted the Wikipedia "Anfal" describing how many Kurds Saddam Husseyin really killed. The difference in the two countries was in Iraq there were massacres of the civilian Kurdish population in Turkey Kurdish combatanats got killed.

Your figure of 2000 is simply wrong.

I think the US made things worse in Iraq but to be fair Saddam was a gangster. The people running Turkey in the 1990ies were not.

N. Friedman -
3/15/2011

Arnold,

As someone who likes but does not agree with both Fahrettin and you and who often agrees with Fahrettin, I think your comment is entirely unfair. Having posted with him over the course of a few years, I can say definitively that Fahrettin may mistakenly misinterpret your comment but he would never misrepresent it.

Arnold Shcherban -
3/14/2011

Fahrettin,
By clownish, ever misrepresenting
your opponent's position (which I'm sick and tired to hammer into your thick skull), instead of using facts and logic to prove own one, you really discriminated yourself in my eyes, and therefore, I'm done debating with you, personally. But the ones like you can always "count on me" to be lurking around ready to destroy any chauvinistic and religious fallacy.

Arnold Shcherban -
3/14/2011

Fahrettin, judging by your response you either unable to follow the logical flow of our debate, or deliberately try to get it off the track.
Look: in my initial comment I stated that according to well-recognized by wide international community figures, Saddam Hussein regime killed about 2000 Kurds, while Turkish regime killed ten times more, i.e. 20,000 Kurds.
In your first response to that part of my initial comment you stated that
correct figures are 30,000 on Iraqi side and 200,000 on Turkish side.
Everyone in sober mind would understand the latter figures as the number of Kurds being killed on the respective side, since hopefully you were responding to me, not to uncle Sam. However, already in the next response to my new questions, again about KURDS (not Turks and Kurds or Iraqi and Kurds) being killed you revealed that those were the figures for combined account of the dead(?).
Anyway, since your revelation does not negate either my initial account of dead Kurds on neither side (perhaps, even greatly increasing it on Turkish side, which obviously does not work in favor of your position), or my implication that many Kurds have killed by Turkish and Iraqi side as illegally, as PKK killed Turks and Iraqis, what's your point?
Did you really believe that I apologize PKK for their wrongdoings and terrorism against Turkish and Iraqi authorities?
Sorry, but my mind or conscience is not one-way machine, like yours is...

Further, your argument/hypothesis of speedy-execution as the reason only 2000 Kurds have been charged to Saddam H., does not stand a slightest logical or chronological critique.
The figure was propagated around the world by US and other Western political leaders and mass-media long BEFORE the invasion itself and ever after Saddam'm execution!
And the fact that Saddam H. was executed NOT for gassing Kurds, but for the one hundred and something UNRELATED murders buries your argument once and for all (whether you will admit it or not.)
My point regarding that legal charge that you apparently still cannot guess, was the following: if one can apologize Turks for killing Kurds as
enemies of the nation and terrorists in no-war (against external enemy) time, then one can certainly apologize Baathist regime for killing Kurds, again, as enemy of the nation and terrorists for siding with a sworn external enemy - Iranians - in war time!
However, if that particular legal charge against Saddam was valid, then
Turkish authorities HAVE to be charged
with the same crime - genocide against Kurds.
One cannot have a cake and it too, as folks say.

Your allusion to mythical PRINCIPAL difference between liberation and independnce movements of Kurds in Iraq, and Turkey through false Russians-are-coming scare (it was PROVEN false a decade ago through opening of pertaning Soviet archival documents) with "In Turkey the PKK was fighting for a marxist leninist seperatist state" makes as much sense, as the speedy-execution hypothesis.

Arnold Shcherban -
3/14/2011

Fahrettin, judging by your response you either unable to follow the logical flow of our debate, or deliberately try to get it off the track.
Look: in my initial comment I stated that according to well-recognized by wide international community figures, Saddam Hussein regime killed about 2000 Kurds, while Turkish regime killed ten times more, i.e. 20,000 Kurds.
In your first response to that part of my initial comment you stated that
correct figures are 30,000 on Iraqi side and 200,000 on Turkish side.
Everyone in sober mind would understand the latter figures as the number of Kurds being killed on the respective side, since hopefully you were responding to me, not to uncle Sam. However, already in the next response to my new questions, again about KURDS (not Turks and Kurds or Iraqi and Kurds) being killed you revealed that those were the figures for combined account of the dead(?).
Anyway, since your revelation does not negate either my initial account of dead Kurds on neither side (perhaps, even greatly increasing it on Turkish side, which obviously does not work in favor of your position), or my implication that many Kurds have killed by Turkish and Iraqi side as illegally, as PKK killed Turks and Iraqis, what's your point?
Did you really believe that I apologize PKK for their wrongdoings and terrorism against Turkish and Iraqi authorities?
Sorry, but my mind or conscience is not one-way machine, like yours is...

Further, your argument/hypothesis of speedy-execution as the reason only 2000 Kurds have been charged to Saddam H., does not stand a slightest logical or chronological critique.
The figure was propagated around the world by US and other Western political leaders and mass-media long BEFORE the invasion itself and ever after Saddam'm execution!
And the fact that Saddam H. was executed NOT for gassing Kurds, but for the one hundred and something UNRELATED murders buries your argument once and for all (whether you will admit it or not.)
My point regarding that legal charge that you apparently still cannot guess, was the following: if one can apologize Turks for killing Kurds as
enemies of the nation and terrorists in no-war (against external enemy) time, then one can certainly apologize Baathist regime for killing Kurds, again, as enemy of the nation and terrorists for siding with a sworn external enemy - Iranians - in war time!
However, if that particular legal charge against Saddam was valid, then
Turkish authorities HAVE to be charged
with the same crime - genocide against Kurds.
One cannot have a cake and it too, as folks say.

Your allusion to mythical PRINCIPAL difference between liberation and independnce movements of Kurds in Iraq, and Turkey through false Russians-are-coming scare (it was PROVEN false a decade ago through opening of pertaning Soviet archival documents) with "In Turkey the PKK was fighting for a marxist leninist seperatist state" makes as much sense, as the speedy-execution hypothesis.

Fahrettin Tahir -
3/14/2011

Arnold

Jewish or not representing differing opinions as criminal is Soviet.

I am giving here a Moslem view that Moslem countries are being victimized. This is not a particularly nationalist position.

As Henry Kissinger said, even the paranoid have their enemies.

Fahrettin Tahir -
3/14/2011

Moslems were not trying to exterminate anyone in Sudan. The place has its fights, like other African countries and I admit I do not understand all these African wars but trying to represent them in European terms is propaganda. This propaganda serves Western interests which are all about oil.

james joseph butler -
3/14/2011

FT, "Most of that 99%(the southern Sudanese) were living their lives as their ancestors had for centuries." I sincerely appreciate honest ignorance or as I once suspected of FT, sardonic wit. To borrow a phrase from one my Zionist brothers, "He stands revealed". I'm so glad I didn't say that.

Mr Tahrir your entire #147671 post should be memorized by the US State Dept, the Pentagon, and the Oval Office, as prime evidence of the paranoia that decades of mindless imperialism can create. It's why America should not participate in a no-fly zone no matter how well intentioned. There's no escaping history and its mistakes, without either, "truth and reconcilation", or lots of counseling.

Fahrettin the point is, if as you say 99% of Southern Sudanese were living a timeless agrarian life why were the Muslims trying to exterminate them? And believe it or not the US was not aiding them, OK George Clooney is CIA but ...

Arnold Shcherban -
3/14/2011

That's what I really wrote:
<...vicious double standards (representing one of the major features of the Western, especially the US foreign policy) begin to show up right away, until they completely overwhelm Fahrettin's comment, transforming it to the rant
of a religious (in this case, Islamic, the term he used seven times in the very short comment) and chauvinistic (in this case, Turkish) zealot.
The latter ones (no matter what nation and religion they represent)...>
I specifically pointed out by the last phrase, by reference to the same Western type, and by saying "in this case" that my target, so speak, is ANY chauvinist and religious zealot, not specifically Turkish and Islamic and you could not help noticing it.

You on the other token responded with
specifically targeting my national, though not ethnic background (since I'm a Jew, which you apparently did not know), by essentially saying that I learned "to do" politics from Soviets (meaning, of course, Soviet communists and Russians), which was not only ludicrous (since we are not "doing" politics on these boards, instead merely discussing/debating it), but what's more to the point, revealed your hatred, and continue to express it up to now, towards Russians and Armenians, in general.

Thus, my position is clearly principal and international, i.e has nothing to do with Turks and Islam, in particular, but only with my rejection of ANY kind of chauvinism and religious exclusivity, and yours is narrowly nationalistic and rejects the non-Islamic point of view and actions (on the events under current debate), in particular.

Fahrettin Tahir -
3/14/2011

Russiais for Turks what Nazi Germany was for Jews - the country which did an anomous amount of evil acts to exterminate the Turks. They were the drivoing force behind 5 million of our people murdred and millions more deported from their homes.

It was Russia which incited the Armenians to a revolt motivating them with the propspect of living in an Anatolia without Turks.

Your name seems to be Russian and you represent this heritage. Not every Russian is guilty of course but the hate against Turks you demontrate is clear.

Fahrettin Tahir -
3/14/2011

For a discussion of Iaqi deaths under Saddam see Wikipedia, Al Anfal campaign.

The Kurds revolted at a time when Iran was attacking Iraq and Saddam used brute force against the entire Kurdish population including civilians.

In Turkey the PKK was fighting for a marxist leninist seperatist state, the last one of the 1960ies national liberation movements and lost a lot of combatants. There was little if any dying among non combatanats except known PKK suppprters.

The security forces were convinced they can not defeat an insurgency if they left known supporters remanin in action.

Other security forces elsewhere also do the same.

Fahrettin Tahir -
3/14/2011

I have no information about extrajudiciary killings. For a while PKK supporters were killed and this finished the war. The recognized casualty rate for bith sides was 30000.

The Casualty rate for Iraq was as I said 200000 out of A FAR LOWER POPULATION. Alone on Halepje 5000 Kurds were gasses to death.

I can imagine a 2000 figure which the court used to make rapid progress in court and kill Saddam before an international reaction to stop them could develop. and the us did not want to risk that,

Putting him on trial for his government would have been putting the us invasion on trial

I believe that is how he American court system operates without any us legal experience.

You are the one who started with chauvenistic remarks here, attacking me for my nationality and religion instead of dicsussing ideas.

Arnold Shcherban -
3/13/2011

I have several questions for you Fahrettin, regarding your response to my initial comment:
1) Did you admit that Turkish authorities ILLEGALLY killed 30,000 (your figure) Kurds?
2) If Saddam's regime had ILLEGALLY killed 200,000 Kurds, as you claim, why would the US and its Western "allies" - the ones who put Saddam - their professed diabolic enemy and worst criminal - to trial (eventually executing him), accused him of illegal killing of just 2000 Kurds, the figure that 100 (!)times less? And why would no loud screams of injustice perpetrated by such tremendous "discount" come from Kurdish side?
And the last, this time, note: unless the figures presented by you are taken from well-recognized international sources and indicate ILLEGAL (extrajudicial) killings, don't even bother to repeat them.

Your remark about my national background is not only chauvinistic (confirming once more what I said you were), but obviously constitute no response "to the rest of what I" wrote.

Fahrettin Tahir -
3/13/2011

James

I replied to you above. In case you expect something explicit about Mubarak and Gaddafi I would say they were trying use an issue -Sudan- to disatract from the fact that both should get lost. That does not make Western policies less of a problem.

james joseph butler -
3/13/2011

Fahrettin I await your reply

Fahrettin Tahir -
3/13/2011

Mr Shcherban

In the war of the PKK around 30 000 people lost their lives. There are around 20 million Kurds in Turkey.

In Saddams Iraq 200 000 Kurds out of 3 Millions died. The mathematics is clear.

The rest of what you write sounds as if I can not disagree with you without being a fanatic and insane.

Is that what you learned about how to conduct politics, growing up in the Soviet Union?

Fahrettin Tahir -
3/13/2011

Most of that 99 % were living their lives as their ancestors had for centuries.The Sudanese government did not have the resources or the interest in prosecuting them even if they had wanted to and why should they have been interested in that?

Some fought a guerilla war supported by you know who.

Iraq had been broken apart. The partitioning of Afghanistan is being discussed (foreign affairs, january 2011) Sudan and Turkey are being broken apart.

Nobody in the US would be sad about Iran and Pakistan being broken apart.

This is all larger Islamic states being broken into smaller ones to make it easier to control them.

Why do you approve that if you are critical of Western policies?

I think the Israelis shoudl be allowed to live in peace as is everyone else. The status quo is always the basis for peace. Is taht being a zionist?

james joseph butler -
3/13/2011

Fahrettin Tahir,
Apparently you've confused me with someone else. I'm the guy who's endless critical of America's actions in the Muslim world. From Truman to Obama, every administration has misunderstood, used, and abused, for oil, Israel, and hegemony, the Muslim world. Actually, judging by your comments on this particular post and your previous comments where you often common ground with the Zionists here, I'd venture to guess that my understanding is as least as good as yours.

Regarding the 98.83% vote in favor of partition, independence, freedom, and statehood by the Southern Sudanese; I agree the number seems impossible on first glance however if one invests some time in understanding the depth of persecution that these people have endured for year after year and also recognizes that President Bashir employed the janjaweed and helicopter gunships to win over the south rather than bribery and patronage the overwhelming percentage seems reasonable. Absolute war begets absolute defeat at the ballot box. Pre-election polls had independence in the South winning by 90 to 97 percent.

Fahrettin, which two leaders of the Muslim world were foremost in their efforts to thwart the will of the Southern Sudanese and maintain a "united" Sudan? Ghaddafi and Mubarak. Two good Muslims I suppose.

Arnold Shcherban -
3/13/2011

<The rape of Iraq more or less destroyed whatever residual confidence anyone might have had in Western intentions and actions.> writes Fahrettin. 100% true and deservedly so. I would add - Afghanistan, too.
But, unfortunately, vicious double standards (representing one of the major features of the Western, especially the US foreign policy) begin to show up right away, until they completely overwhelm Fahrettin's comment, transforming it to the rant
of a religious (in this case, Islamic, the term he used seven times in the very short comment) and chauvinistic (in this case, Turkish) zealot.
The latter ones (no matter what nation and religion they represent) have one common, most prominent, and despicable characteristic: yelling "Hold the thief", while stealing someone's purse, so to speak, i.e. raising terrible stink about wrongs/crimes committed by their critics and perceived enemies, while
denying or/and totally justifying their own deadly sins.
By the perverted logic of Turkish and other Islamic chauvinists Saddam Hussein was a criminal not because he
ordered to kill two (or so) thousands of Kurds and other Iraqis, but because
his regime was secular, not Islamic, and he did not live well with Turkish
pro-US governments. Therefore, Turkish authorities who killed ten times more Kurds than Saddam' regime did (accompanied by complete silence and even empathy towards Turkish efforts to implement peace, stability, and democracy that way, on the part of their Western "allies")
were totally justified to physically eliminate those Kurdish terrorists, according to well-established rationale developed and executed by Turkish NATO and Israeli friends... and war criminals. The same concerns Turkish "noble" efforts in maintaining stability and peace between different ethnic groups populating Cyprus, where
only non-Islamic people are to be blamed for being ethnically cleansed.
As far as the issue of Armenian genocide is concerned, why not to follow suite of some individuals from other Western nation - not only current, but also past (in Nazi times) ally - Germany, in denial of Jewish genocide, which never happened, too...
Then comes the so-called "rape" of Kashmir, obviously by Hindus. Not a word about massive Islamic terror against the latter ones, both on Kashmir's and India's territory, causing many thousands of civilian deaths, combined. That is also and exclusively India's and Western fault.
This kind of self-righteous narrative coming from Fahrettin goes on and on... without any recognition on his part that it rolls exactly along the same good, ol' groove created by the perpetrator itself - Western, allegedly anti-Islamic, imperialism.

Fahrettin Tahir -
3/12/2011

Joseph

simply acknowledge that the perceptions in the Islamic world are different from what you think.

This is why they are reacting in ways you do not understand.

a 99% yes vote? I thought that went out with the Soviet Union.

Partitioning other peoples countries so they fit into your designs is evil.

james joseph butler -
3/12/2011

This is a fascinating post. If I'm not mistaken Fahrettin has one ideal: Turkey, please disabuse me otherwise Mr. T. Like the Zionists, he sees a country embattled and grants it the freedom to execute, no questions asked, literally or metaphorically, those he perceives posing an existential threat, similar to; Rep. King, Pres. Obama, most of America.

My initial impression that the entire post is sarcasm, "The Western driven partition of Sudan was another evil act.", apparently Fahrettin thinks 99% (I know it must be fixed but apparently not. I wonder why.) of southern Sudanese voters favoring freedom from depradation and rape in the literal sense rather than Kashmir's disenfranchisment is "evil".

What kind of person believes that a partition of North and South Sudan is "evil"? Fahrettin I wholeheartedly agree that any unilateral American actions in Libya are stupid and wrong.

Fahrettin Tahir -
3/12/2011

The issue here is whether the Islamic world trusts the West enough to support a military intervention in yet another Islamic country.

The answer is no they don't. The rape of Iraq more or less destroyed whatever residual confidence anyone might have had in Western intentions and actions.

The West must reset her relationship with the Islamic world by recognizing real issues.

Going the the only Islamic country allied with the West they must end their support for the kurdish terrorist PKK. They must end their attempt to push the Turks out of Cyprus. They must end theri support for Armenian revenge policies.

The US must deport Islamic cleric Fethullah Gulen who from his base in Philadelphia is running a subversive brotherhood buyh bringing the justioce and the police under their control and which puts anyone who opens their mouth in jail. Turks see him as a CIA operative.

The present Turkish perception is that the West supports the AKP because they expect concessions on the Kurdish, Cyprus, Armenians policies.

Other islamic countries have other issues. Pakistan hates the rape of Kashmir. The Western driven partition of Sudan was another evil act.

In return the Islamic world should be expected to leave Israel live in peace.

What Mr Bush did demonstrate in Iraq was that the West is no longer strong enough for such policies.